## [geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:46:50 +1000

```Actually Pauls question is far more complicated from my view. In any case what
is the sidereal day for the moon?

If HC is correct then the stars will have a sidereal period close to 28 days.
The instantaneous disruption of uncreating the earth in an instant will cause
the moon to fly off in many different spirals around the sun according to which
point of its orbit it was released. However it would most probably maintain its
rotation, and so the sidereal day on the moon would be still 28 days. give or
take.

But my imagination is wont to consider what is the sidereal period today if GC
is correct. Though the moons rotation would be 24 hours in keeping with a 24
hour orbit, I pose it would still maintain a sidereal day of 28 earth days
because the stars motions around the world maintains the same relative motions.

If HC is boxed in, so are we. There is as we have said a thousand times no
method in this universe for us to distinguish which is moving and which is not
in relation to each other.

I had hypothesised months back that both EMR and or a flywheel stability would
give us a static platform to make observations... But this is not the case if
we resort to a rotating aether, which is the only way we can explain the
geostationary satellite.

God has us stumped. boxed in..

Philip.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:36 PM
Subject: (no subject)

Allen D

"What will be the Moon's sidereal period subsequent to the Earth vanishing at
Full Moon".

Here is your 'definitive' statement offered in answer to that question -

" If the moon is still be moving the way it did before the earth's
disappearance then it will see exactly the same things the same way it did
before the earths disappearance."

If I understand you correctly, your statement could be rendered more
succinctly by -

"If the Moon's motion subsequent to the event is unchanged, then its view
will be unchanged."

First, it does not answer the question which sought the magnitude of the
sidereal period. Second, it is incorrect in that the Earth will no longer be in
view. Third, it supposes the suspension of the laws of physics in unnecessarily
anticipating unchanged motion on the part of the Moon upon the tragic loss of
its primary. Fourth, it is essentially a null statement of the form "If nothing
has changed then nothing is changed".

1. I did make a difinitive statment!?

2. I have never been to the moon and observer it’s sidereal period and
neither have you or anyone else for that matter! Thus, any other answer to your
question would be based on assumptions.........!?

Taking 2. and leaving aside the annoying contradiction that this is both a
statement and a question, I observe the assumption that neither I nor anyone
else has been to the Moon and observed its sidereal period. I personally don't
have the problem with assumption (together with 'theory', 'believe' or 'belief'
and 'faith' among others that are routinely and narrowly used by
fundamentalists) that you do (as witnessed by the concluding sentence) but on
what grounds and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary do you
make this assumption? (Rhetorical question!)

The point is that the Moon's sidereal period has been known for centuries and
could be determined by you to a tolerable level of accuracy from your own back
yard armed with little more than your eyes, a clock, a little patience and
perseverance and a pencil and paper. The level of confidence in the accuracy of
height of a tree in your neighbourhood by the use of a crude theodolite and the
principle of proportionality. In case it was missed, it is not necessary to
climb a tree with a ruler in order to determine its height just as it is not
necessary to journey to the Moon with scientific paraphernalia to determine its
sidereal period. To insist otherwise is to engage in sophistry.

Far from the definitive statement you suggest, I suggest that it is an
equivocating collection of mealy mouthed weasel words.

So then, I'll put the question again. Given the long known and generally
accepted value for the Moon's sidereal period of approximately 27.322 earth
mean solar days and the universality of the laws of physics, what change would
you predict in this value were the Earth to vanish at the time of the Full Moon?

Paul D

PS As a concession, you need not have the Earth depart this realm at Full
Moon -- any time you choose is acceptable.

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Allen D

So essentially you lack the courage to make a definitive statement.

Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 14 December, 2007 4:31:02 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Rotation of camera

Paul,

1. I say things the way i do to get a certain response .

2. the answer to your question is " If the moon is still be moving the way it
did before the earth's disapearance then it will see exactly the same things
the same way it did before the earths disappearance."

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Allen D

Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 14 December, 2007 3:24:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Rotation of camera

Paul,

I am Qoting Regner with my comments in blue:...I think we have found a source
of some misunderstandings here...Sidereal means "with respect to the stars". No
misunderstaning .<Then why the prevarication about determining sidereal
periods?>.You sit on the Moon, look in a particular direction and see a star.
The rotation of the Moon on it's axis, cause the stars to seem to
rotate around the pole of that axis (the star trails).
The stars will pass by your field of view. Right.

If the moon is still be moving the way it did before the earth's disapearance
then it will see exactly the same things the same way it did before the earths
disappearance...? <Is this a question or a statement?>

Rotation and gravitation are not one and the same things nor are they
dependent upon each other. <I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that they
are.> Gravity is and can only be used as a force for the vectors in your
question. <I didn't ask for vectors.> However, a Gravity feild does not define
what is and is not a rotation? <Is this a question or a statement?> and <I'm
not aware that anyone has suggested that they are.> ...What are you trying to
get at..? <I'm not trying to 'get at' anything. I asked a simple question in
the hope of receiving a simple answer. No prevarication, no muddying of the
waters, no obfuscation, no superfluous explanations, no eel-like manoeuvres --
a simple answer to the question "What will be the Moon's sidereal period
subsequent to the Earth vanishing at Full Moon".>

Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Quoting Allen Daves :

>
> If the earth "vanishish" then how do you define a change in sidereal
> period? For that matter how could you define a sidereal period at all?....
>
You stare out in your particular direction until that particular
star comes back to the same position. The time that took, is the
sidereal period of the Moon.

That star (any star) is your reference point, external to the Moon,
that enables you to directly measure the rotation.

The same, of course, works for the Earth, or any celestial object.

- Regner

>
> Paul Deema wrote:
>
> Allen D
> No Allen -- no black dots, no brown circles, no shaft, no 'shaft
> rotation.png'. The Earth, the Moon, the Moon's sidereal period. Go!
> Paul D
>
> IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m not sure i understand your question, but look at the
attached
> diagram. If the (earth) vanishes, the (moon) will still rotate around that
> same "dimensionless" point& axis that lay outside of the moon (brown circle)
> at whatever rate it was before. The axis and common point do not have to lay
> in/on a physical body. (I.e. a barycenter) thus "dimensionless" = no
physical
> form nessisary to be real, although it gets it's meaning, location and
> deffintion from the condition and relationships of physical forms.
>
> Assumptions about gravity or the center of the universe do not define a
> rotation either way?..The/any changes in force and gravitational influence,
> hold equaly true for the shaft. If the nuclear and molecular bonds ( glue...
> akin to gravity in the universe) in the shaft sudenly disapear then the
shaft
> will explode...?
>
> Paul Deema wrote:
>
> Allen D
> Knowledgeable of your love of mind experiments ... just kidding |[:-). All
> the same I have one for you which concerns rotation of the Moon.
> The Moon has a sidereal period of approximately 27.322 mean solar days. At
> full moon the Earth vanishes. Will its sidereal period change and if so by
> (roughly) how much?
> Paul D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 14/12/2007
11:29 AM
```